Utah Court of Appeals Hears Argument Over Admissibility of Pubic-hair Evidence in State v. Hernandez Rivera

SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah Court of Appeals heard oral argument Monday in State v. Hernandez Rivera over whether a trial court properly limited the defense from presenting evidence that another man might have been the source of pubic hair a victim turned over to police in February 2005.

During the 90-minute session, three judges and counsel focused on the interplay between Utah Rule of Evidence 412 (the rape‑shield rule), Rule 403’s unfair‑prejudice balancing, and whether the trial court’s weighing of probative value and prejudice was supported by the record. After argument, the court said it would take the matter under advisement and issue a decision later.

The question at the center of argument was whether the trial court improperly prevented the defense from introducing evidence that an earlier assault or investigation involving a different man (identified in the record as “Edmundo”) could explain the origin of a pubic hair the victim brought to police. Douglas Thompson, defense counsel for Felipe Hernandez Rivera, told the court the exclusion deprived the defendant of the ability to rebut the state’s use of the inconclusive DNA evidence and that the trial court “fused” the Rule 412 and Rule 403 analyses…